Game Over Liberals: Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) to vote against abolishing Filibuster

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'll wait for Democrats to pull out a miracle and win both GA runoffs before even going here. But if he single-handedly votes to derail the party's whole agenda, Schumer should bar him from Energy Committee Chair. (I thought this was the whole reason he'd give it to him?)

[2016]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

It goes back to Gingrich, although the wheels were arguably set in motion under the Reagan administration.

[2016]

I'll wait for Democrats to pull out a miracle and win both GA runoffs before even going here. But if he single-handedly votes to derail the party's whole agenda, Schumer should bar him from Energy Committee Chair. (I thought this was the whole reason he'd give it to him?)

California Senator Dianne Feinstein is said to be against abolishing the Legislative Filibuster as well so Manchin wouldn't be the only one to vote against it.

Democrats know that if they do it in opens the Door for Republicans. Harry Reid started this nonsense btw by lowering the threshold in 2013 for Circuit Court Judges. It came back to haunt Democrats for the last 6 years (2014-2020) when Republicans managed to confirm 3 SCOTUS Justices.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'll wait for Democrats to pull out a miracle and win both GA runoffs before even going here. But if he single-handedly votes to derail the party's whole agenda, Schumer should bar him from Energy Committee Chair. (I thought this was the whole reason he'd give it to him?)

California Senator Dianne Feinstein is said to be against abolishing the Legislative Filibuster as well so Manchin wouldn't be the only one to vote against it.

Democrats know that if they do it in opens the Door for Republicans. Harry Reid started this nonsense btw by lowering the threshold in 2013 for Circuit Court Judges. It came back to haunt Democrats for the last 6 years (2014-2020) when Republicans managed to confirm 3 SCOTUS Justices.

It really doesn't. Taxing and spending bills can be passed with a simple majority under reconciliation. New programs or ACA-style economic reforms must pass under the normal rules.

Consider that Republicans didn't need to abolish the filibuster to almost repeal Obamacare or pass the TCJA. If millions of Americans are left without pre-existing condition protections because of SCOTUS, Democrats would need to pass new legislation under the filibuster rules, assuming they hold that chamber.

[7,052,770]

Oh well rest easy suburbanites. You don't have to vote for Perdue and Qelly now.

[SevenEleven]

I'll wait for Democrats to pull out a miracle and win both GA runoffs before even going here. But if he single-handedly votes to derail the party's whole agenda, Schumer should bar him from Energy Committee Chair. (I thought this was the whole reason he'd give it to him?)

California Senator Dianne Feinstein is said to be against abolishing the Legislative Filibuster as well so Manchin wouldn't be the only one to vote against it.

Democrats know that if they do it in opens the Door for Republicans. Harry Reid started this nonsense btw by lowering the threshold in 2013 for Circuit Court Judges. It came back to haunt Democrats for the last 6 years (2014-2020) when Republicans managed to confirm 3 SCOTUS Justices.

Name an instance where the legislative filibuster has helped Democrats.

[Yellowhammer]

I wonder if this is political calculation or Manchin just voting with his principles.

Democrats don't have principles, this is obviously a calculation

[ProgressiveModerate]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

It goes back to Gingrich, although the wheels were arguably set in motion under the Reagan administration.

Let's not get into a whole debate over who started it, let's just try to end it.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

It goes back to Gingrich, although the wheels were arguably set in motion under the Reagan administration.

Let's not get into a whole debate over who started it, let's just try to end it.

It's generally quite difficult to solve problems when one doesn't really understand them (and, by extension, their contemporary causes). I'm not sure Democrats and Republicans have to agree on when, exactly, it started, but I would hope they could concur the signs were there in the late 90s. If someone disagreed with this, that'd be fine but it'd mean we were looking for quite different things when seeking out evidence of where and how polarisation grows.

[MillennialModerate]

I was against abolishing it also but I’ve since changed because: does anyone in their right mind believe McConell wouldn’t lead an effort to do so if a major piece of conservative legislation was on the line?

He could care less about the institutions of our democracy and the right wing base is the same way.

With that said, this is a no brainer calculation by Mancbin because he knows Dems won’t have the majority anyway - so why not say this?

[Suburbia]

Manchin is retiring in 2024, WV 2024 is Safe R anyway, so why are Democrats angry at him on Twitter?

Manchin, Tester and Sinema are swing votes in the Senate.

Collins and Romney as well

[Suburbia]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

It goes back to Gingrich, although the wheels were arguably set in motion under the Reagan administration.

If that's the case, how did Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright cut deals to get something done in that cesspool of Capitol Hill? Nothing gets done

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I've never been one for going this route anyways, so I'd actually be quite pleased if Manchin is telling the truth.

Really, why? The fillibuster is mostly an obstacle to getting legislation passed, atleast in the way it’s used today.

It's only going to escalate political divisions and create more instability in politics. I could see the argument for lowering it to 55 votes, but 60 votes instantly allows whoever wins a trifecta to go rouge, and considering the GOP is likely going to control the senate more often than not for the foreseeable future, I don't know if that's something we want. Ultimately senators are people, and we need o work to bring humanity back to the senate, people will be willing to do what is right when the time calls at the end of the day.

I’m not really concerned about what the GOP will do without a filibuster. The GOP doesn’t really have a agenda that can be blocked with the filibuster. Most things that they want, like tax cuts, can be done through reconciliation. Meanwhile most of the Democratic agenda can’t be passed unless the filibuster is killed. It’s certainly worth it in my view.

The senate shouldn't be about passing a partisan agenda though. It should be a group of people working together to solve problems and do what is right. 60 votes ensures something needs bipartisan support, and you can't be in a gridlock forever, something has to give. The senate is designed to be a chamber for gridlock to some level, it's purposely designed to be less reactive to the national environment; that's the House. If anything, I would argue the real reform that needs to be made is that senate races need to be non-partisan.

TBH, I am flummoxed that apparently Democrats will never get it. The Country has become too polarized. We have had Romney, Collins, Murkowski on one side....Manchin, Sinema and Jones on the other Side. With Jones losing Senate will become even more partisan.

Obama btw started this polarization.

It goes back to Gingrich, although the wheels were arguably set in motion under the Reagan administration.

If that's the case, how did Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright cut deals to get something done in that cesspool of Capitol Hill? Nothing gets done

There was indeed a lot of bipartisanship in Reagan's era. My argument hinged more upon the argument that reforms which really kicked off under his presidency created the conditions necessary for much worse polarisation than existed beforehand - a sharp decline of labour and especially organised labour, a rise in inequality within the nation as a result of globalisation and so on. I don't actually lay all that much blame at his feet despite this because there were plenty of opportunities for his successors to stop pursuing once-popular policies that were no longer so and he can't be held completely responsible for subsequent administrations extrapolating his vision to places he probably hadn't imagined.

[Blair]

Virtually everyone knew (or I assumed knew) that the democrats would need at least 52 votes to pass filibuster reform.

A 50-50 senate with Mark Kelly up for re-election in 2022 & with Joe Manchin, Diane Feinstein & Kyrsten Sinema was never going to gut it; especially when it's designed for legislation that needs some padding to pass the House.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Remember the title of this thread the next time some Trump hack on Atlas whines about how teh mean old Democrats shouldn't gloat about Biden winning and rub in Republican's faces the fact that Trump is a stone cold loser. 

[MATTROSE94]

I know that they are all very conservative, but is it possible for Chuck Schummer to "convince" Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to become Independents if Donald Trump and the Republican party leadership continues their undemocratic antics?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I know that they are all very conservative, but is it possible for Chuck Schummer to "convince" Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to become Independents if Donald Trump and the Republican party leadership continues their undemocratic antics?

This is why I know it's one of your high quality posts.

[MATTROSE94]

I know that they are all very conservative, but is it possible for Chuck Schummer to "convince" Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to become Independents if Donald Trump and the Republican party leadership continues their undemocratic antics?

This is why I know it's one of your high quality posts.

Why? Ben Sase did come out against Donald Trump and accepted a Biden Presidency. Even though he is very conservative, Ben Sasse does believe in democracy and would likely not want to see a civil war break out.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I know that they are all very conservative, but is it possible for Chuck Schummer to "convince" Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to become Independents if Donald Trump and the Republican party leadership continues their undemocratic antics?

This is why I know it's one of your high quality posts.

Why? Ben Sase did come out against Donald Trump and accepted a Biden Presidency. Even though he is very conservative, Ben Sasse does believe in democracy and would likely not want to see a civil war break out.

Have you read his incredibly bipartisan 12-year Senate term proposal? It's inspiring stuff and comes with a Big Brother-style setup for all 100 members of the chamber.

[MATTROSE94]

I know that they are all very conservative, but is it possible for Chuck Schummer to "convince" Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to become Independents if Donald Trump and the Republican party leadership continues their undemocratic antics?

This is why I know it's one of your high quality posts.

Why? Ben Sase did come out against Donald Trump and accepted a Biden Presidency. Even though he is very conservative, Ben Sasse does believe in democracy and would likely not want to see a civil war break out.

Have you read his incredibly bipartisan 12-year Senate term proposal? It's inspiring stuff and comes with a Big Brother-style setup for all 100 members of the chamber.

That plan doesn't look that great in its current form due to the fact that it would require Senators to be elected by the state legislatures. Assuming that the direct election of Senators would remain under such a plan, I would actually consider it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The D's need to pass the 1200 stimulus now and if need be pass more stimulus checks, thru reconciliation, if they get a 51/49 a bigger stimulus package in the new Congress.

It's safe to assume 2.2T Heroes Act won't be passed at all in it's current form.  Rs already said they are gonna give 400 checks to unemployment

[MT Treasurer]

The fact that Manchin's messaging even works on hardcore partisans on this forum (from both sides, not just talking about the conservative OP), a forum which provides an outlet for some of the least persuadable and/or most ideological voters in the country, shows you just how good the man at what he does. He obviously said this on Fox to placate the audience/depress R turnout in GA/help Warnock and Ossoff.

I swear, Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are some of the most skilled political actors since the Reagan era. OP is precisely the kind of voter Manchin knows will fall for this stuff, and it’s working like a charm.

[Frenchrepublican]

The fact that Manchin's messaging even works on hardcore partisans on this forum (from both sides, not just talking about the conservative OP), a forum which provides an outlet for some of the least persuadable and/or most ideological voters in the country, shows you just how good the man at what he does. He obviously said this on Fox to placate the audience/depress R turnout in GA/help Warnock and Ossoff.

I swear, Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are some of the most skilled political actors since the Reagan era. OP is precisely the kind of voter Manchin knows will fall for this stuff, and it’s working like a charm.

Yeah, and the '' Thank you Senator Manchin '' is so naive.